Hacker's memorial —

Anonymous defaces MIT website with memorial for Aaron Swartz

Visitors to the MIT website last night were greeted with a message from Anonymous about Aaron Swartz, calling the government's prosecution of the late open access activist a "grotesque miscarriage of justice."

It was run-of-the-mill website vandalism rather than a serious attack impacting MIT's back-end security. CNET caught a screenshot of the defacement while it was still online:

The "YourAnonNews" Twitter account reported "#MIT Owned by #Anonymous," and used Pastebin to provide the full text of the message that was temporarily on the MIT website. "Whether or not the government contributed to his suicide, the government's prosecution of Swartz was a grotesque miscarriage of justice, a distorted and perverse shadow of the justice that Aaron died fighting for—freeing the publicly-funded scientific literature from a publishing system that makes it inaccessible to most of those who paid for it—enabling the collective betterment of the world through the facilitation of sharing—an ideal that we should all support," the message stated.

Ars' Timothy B. Lee also used the phrase "grotesque miscarriage of justice" to describe the government prosecution of Swartz in an article on Saturday.

In its message on the MIT site, Anonymous also called for the "reform of computer crime laws and the overzealous prosecutors who use them," and a "reform of copyright and intellectual property law."

Swartz, 26, committed suicide Friday. He had been indicted for logging into MIT's network to gain access to the JSTOR database and download millions of academic journal articles. MIT announced yesterday that it will investigate its own involvement in the process that led to his legal battle. "It pains me to think that MIT played any role in a series of events that have ended in tragedy," MIT President Rafael Reif wrote.

55 Reader Comments

I still haven't figured out what caused mit.edu to totally blackhole for a few hours before the anon messages went up. Someone from MIT told me they'd had some connectivity failures in the last couple weeks, but it seems too convenient that the IP addresses went dark and the DNS blanked out precisely as anon's message was going up.

I still haven't figured out what caused mit.edu to totally blackhole for a few hours before the anon messages went up. Someone from MIT told me they'd had some connectivity failures in the last couple weeks, but it seems too convenient that the IP addresses went dark and the DNS blanked out precisely as anon's message was going up.

I've understood that internet access went down for at least some of the dorms last night. The reports of a DDoS on the network probably are accurate.

And I'm trying not to feed the troll, but Reif has consistently sent out emails to the entire MIT community when a death occurs in connection to campus, suicide or otherwise. It's just that most of the world doesn't pay attention the rest of the time.

I really have a problem calling a suicide a hero. Suicide, especially when the victim kills himself to avoid something embarrassing or legally daunting, is the ultimate in cowardice.

I support the idea of open access and of transparency at all levels, but I don't support chickening out when a trial might have created more of the same. Swartz should have stuck around to continue the fight.

I really have a problem calling a suicide a hero. Suicide, especially when the victim kills himself to avoid something embarrassing or legally daunting, is the ultimate in cowardice.

I support the idea of open access and of transparency at all levels, but I don't support chickening out when a trial might have created more of the same. Swartz should have stuck around to continue the fight.

I think you'll find your point of view has been discussed with strong conviction in the comments on one of the other Swartz-related articles. I'll just say that I likely disagree with your perspective of suicide and depression -- though I don't know. I definitely disagree with your presumption that you know what Aaron Swartz was going through and thus are at liberty to judge his courage.

I really have a problem calling a suicide a hero. Suicide, especially when the victim kills himself to avoid something embarrassing or legally daunting, is the ultimate in cowardice.

I support the idea of open access and of transparency at all levels, but I don't support chickening out when a trial might have created more of the same. Swartz should have stuck around to continue the fight.

You have no clue what you are talking about if you refer to suicide as chickening out. None at all. Were you good friends with Aaron and knew what his state of mind was? Do you know his medical history? Did you sit in on the meetings with his lawyer and the Justice Department and knew what he was facing or being threatened with? Have you ever had the conviction to stand up for something you believe in even if there was a chance you could spend a good portion of the rest of your life in prison for doing so?

Probably not, you're probably one of those people who think depression isn't real either because you can't see it.

I really have a problem calling a suicide a hero. Suicide, especially when the victim kills himself to avoid something embarrassing or legally daunting, is the ultimate in cowardice.

I support the idea of open access and of transparency at all levels, but I don't support chickening out when a trial might have created more of the same. Swartz should have stuck around to continue the fight.

He most probably/definitely wasn't thinking, "If I kill myself I'll be a martyr to my own cause." To come here and disgrace a man you probably didn't know and call him a chicken when he's done more for openness in his short life than you'll do in your lifetime just makes you look like an ass.

Come back when you've known someone personally that's committed suicide.

I really don't know what was going on in Swartz's mind, it's true. But the timing suggests that he didn't want to face a long legal battle he couldn't win, and took an easier way out.

I meant my objection in a general sort of way. People who start something revolutionary (or potentially so) and then abandon that beginning through flight or suicide are doing their followers a disservice.

Suicide is true cowardice. I have faced more than one case of it in my family, and I have reasons for my anger. I support Swartz's ideals for access, but I abhor his death and WILL NOT call him a hero because of it.

I offer my deepest sympathies to those closest to him. I understand what you're going through. Please take note that I do not denegrate the man, only his final act. I hope you can learn to forgive him.

I really have a problem calling a suicide a hero. Suicide, especially when the victim kills himself to avoid something embarrassing or legally daunting, is the ultimate in cowardice.

Nobody commits suicide out of cowardice. Depression is not a joke. You wouldn't tell a cancer patient that he's staying in the hospital (or dying) out of cowardice, so don't do it to people with mental illnesses. You, and people like you, are making the lives of people who already are in a horrible place so much worse.

Grow up, and show some compassion for a human being who went through shit in his much too short life that nobody should have to go through.

Ignoring whether or not he had a right to commit suicide, let's go back to whether or not he should have bypassed the paywall and distributed files.

I think the public should have free access to academic papers that are basically tax-payer funded to begin with. But you can enact change though legal protest and awareness. Breaking the law because you disagree with it (especially when it is a minor injustice) is foolish.

The media always reports on maximum possible sentence. They say he was facing 35 years in prison, which is true but misleading. Mitnick did far worse and only served 5 years. Since our prisons are overcrowded, charges are routinely dropped, and people rarely serve such lengthy sentences, especially for non-violent crime. There is a chance had he cooperated with the trial, he wouldn't have served a single day in prison.

I really have a problem calling a suicide a hero. Suicide, especially when the victim kills himself to avoid something embarrassing or legally daunting, is the ultimate in cowardice.

I support the idea of open access and of transparency at all levels, but I don't support chickening out when a trial might have created more of the same. Swartz should have stuck around to continue the fight.

Then you would call Socrates a coward who chose suicide over exile as a lesson and message to everyone, he choose to obey societies rules and culture a rebellious notion.

We don't know precisely what went through his head, but the reports I've read said he cited fear of prison as his reason for committing suicide. If that is true, then his motivation was fear, not depression. Saying that is the case in this particular instance is not the same as saying depression doesn't exist for anyone. Your argument is based on statements that were not made.

I really don't know what was going on in Swartz's mind, it's true. But the timing suggests that he didn't want to face a long legal battle he couldn't win, and took an easier way out.

I meant my objection in a general sort of way. People who start something revolutionary (or potentially so) and then abandon that beginning through flight or suicide are doing their followers a disservice.

Suicide is true cowardice. I have faced more than one case of it in my family, and I have reasons for my anger. I support Swartz's ideals for access, but I abhor his death and WILL NOT call him a hero because of it.

I offer my deepest sympathies to those closest to him. I understand what you're going through. Please take note that I do not denegrate the man, only his final act. I hope you can learn to forgive him.

I suggest you talk to someone about your anger. I'm sorry you've lost people to suicide but it might be healthier to learn about depression and mental illness instead of thinking and feeling the way you do about it. Your attitude is the type that stops people who have dark thoughts/mental illness from coming forward and getting the help they need.

When you have dealt with a suicide close to you, judge what I have said. You don't understand what it's like to be a survivor facing empty places at the table.

Swartz had a future. It might have been difficult, but it was there. He started something he could be proud of, but turned his back on it. Perhaps his death had nothing to do with that. But his seat is still empty.

Ignoring whether or not he had a right to commit suicide, let's go back to whether or not he should have bypassed the paywall and distributed files.

I think the public should have free access to academic papers that are basically tax-payer funded to begin with. But you can enact change though legal protest and awareness. Breaking the law because you disagree with it (especially when it is a minor injustice) is foolish.

The media always reports on maximum possible sentence. They say he was facing 35 years in prison, which is true but misleading. Mitnick did far worse and only served 5 years. Since our prisons are overcrowded, charges are routinely dropped, and people rarely serve such lengthy sentences, especially for non-violent crime. There is a chance had he cooperated with the trial, he wouldn't have served a single day in prison.

The US government is very much about punishing people for computer crimes and copyright offences these days. It seems recently these kinds of cases are getting much harsher penalties than the people who commit violent crimes.

I really have a problem calling a suicide a hero. Suicide, especially when the victim kills himself to avoid something embarrassing or legally daunting, is the ultimate in cowardice.

I support the idea of open access and of transparency at all levels, but I don't support chickening out when a trial might have created more of the same. Swartz should have stuck around to continue the fight.

The US government is very much about punishing people for computer crimes and copyright offences these days. It seems recently these kinds of cases are getting much harsher penalties than the people who commit violent crimes.

Other than maybe Manning (the Wikileaks private), what evidence do you have that the government prosecutes computer crimes from vigorously than violent crimes? Prosecutors pushing for the maximum possible sentence is routine and a bargaining tactic, no matter what kind of crime the defendant is accused of.

The US government is very much about punishing people for computer crimes and copyright offences these days. It seems recently these kinds of cases are getting much harsher penalties than the people who commit violent crimes.

Other than maybe Manning (the Wikileaks private), what evidence do you have that the government prosecutes computer crimes from vigorously than violent crimes? Prosecutors pushing for the maximum possible sentence is a routine and a bargaining tactic, no matter what kind of crime the defendant is accused of.

I anyone's interesting here's an interesting discussion about this case and whether or not what the government did was prosecutorial overreach in the strictest terms.

That's a well-written article. For those who don't want to click-through, here's the salient bit:

Quote:

the charges against Swartz were based on a fair reading of the law. None of the charges involved aggressive readings of the law or any apparent prosecutorial overreach. All of the charges were based on established caselaw.

The full article goes through the cases used to back up the above claim.

The US government is very much about punishing people for computer crimes and copyright offences these days. It seems recently these kinds of cases are getting much harsher penalties than the people who commit violent crimes.

Other than maybe Manning (the Wikileaks private), what evidence do you have that the government prosecutes computer crimes from vigorously than violent crimes? Prosecutors pushing for the maximum possible sentence is a routine and a bargaining tactic, no matter what kind of crime the defendant is accused of.

As I understand it, it doesn't matter - he was still facing the jail time for the act, regardless of then-future developments of availability. So, while it may have made him feel better that documents were now more available, it may have also been small consolation.

When you have dealt with a suicide close to you, judge what I have said. You don't understand what it's like to be a survivor facing empty places at the table.

Swartz had a future. It might have been difficult, but it was there. He started something he could be proud of, but turned his back on it. Perhaps his death had nothing to do with that. But his seat is still empty.

I can empathise with what you say and your loss. I'm sorry you've had to endure it, but ostracising those who have chosen that path does nothing to provide a future for those considering it. Please try to understand that position.

You're being rather reductive in your analysis of the situation -- it's not nearly as black and white as you're making it out to be. It rarely is.

I can't comment on Swartz' state of mind, but I can comment on mine. Seeing the reactions of people as they demonize MIT and the prosecutors over Aaron's suicide makes me sick and angry, and I feel I can finally describe why.

I am positive it's not what they intend to say, but the message I hear turns into this: "there are situations in which it is expected that a depressed person will kill him/herself." Now, I fight my depression every day, often with less than desired success, but I'm still on this planet. One of the bedrock messages I tell myself is "giving in is not the answer." My anger is definitely a reaction to the attack on my psyche that perceived message makes.

So, it is with anger I respond to all of you blaming MIT and the prosecutors for Aaron's choice: if you can't understand how your demonizing undermines my efforts to fight my problem, as well as likely making others with depression more likely to choose to escape, shut up until you do understand.

I expect negative votes in reaction to this and I don't bloody care. If you're demonizing others for Aaron's choice you are only making the world worse.

We don't know precisely what went through his head, but the reports I've read said he cited fear of prison as his reason for committing suicide. If that is true, then his motivation was fear, not depression. Saying that is the case in this particular instance is not the same as saying depression doesn't exist for anyone. Your argument is based on statements that were not made.

He had clinical depression, which is a mental illness. Fear of prison doesn't drive a healthy mind to decide on suicide. He may have feared prison, and in his own mind it might have been what made him decide that suicide was a better option, but depression is the reason that was even an option for him.

Mandiuscreel wrote:

When you have dealt with a suicide close to you, judge what I have said. You don't understand what it's like to be a survivor facing empty places at the table.

Swartz had a future. It might have been difficult, but it was there. He started something he could be proud of, but turned his back on it. Perhaps his death had nothing to do with that. But his seat is still empty.

I'm sorry that you've experienced such losses in your life. Blaming them and calling them cowards is not a healthy way of dealing with it, though. I agree that suicide is not heroic, in the same way that dying in a car crash is neither heroic nor cowardice. People with depression kill themselves because they cannot take whatever is going on in their life. If life always caused you unbearable pain and you felt like it was your own fault, and you see the people in your life being affected by it, you might start considering that things would be better for everyone if you were gone. That is pretty much what it is like to have depression. It is not just feeling sad all of the time.

When you have dealt with a suicide close to you, judge what I have said. You don't understand what it's like to be a survivor facing empty places at the table.

Swartz had a future. It might have been difficult, but it was there. He started something he could be proud of, but turned his back on it. Perhaps his death had nothing to do with that. But his seat is still empty.

I am going to agree with the person who said you need help. I suffered an act of suicide as close to someone a person can get, and I was never once angry. Disappointed maybe, but eventually understanding. My stance is that if a person is suffering THAT much, that they would give up everything they hold dear, to end it all after trying many ways to get over it, then they dont deserve to suffer. And it is selfish of me to hold that person to their suffering just so Im not sad of the loss. Many people like to toss around the coward stuff, and the selfishness. But the thing is, those people are being selfish because they dont want to feel like crap, want to miss a person, want to know what their life will be like without that person. And on top of that, possibly being a coward for the fear of what may be without their loved one.

Taking control of a situation spiraling out of control, managing their life how they want, its their right. It may be socially unacceptable, it may hurt others, but at the end of the day it is a persons choice to live and it is not anyone elses place to judge them.

Ignoring whether or not he had a right to commit suicide, let's go back to whether or not he should have bypassed the paywall and distributed files.

I think the public should have free access to academic papers that are basically tax-payer funded to begin with. But you can enact change though legal protest and awareness. Breaking the law because you disagree with it (especially when it is a minor injustice) is foolish.

The media always reports on maximum possible sentence. They say he was facing 35 years in prison, which is true but misleading. Mitnick did far worse and only served 5 years. Since our prisons are overcrowded, charges are routinely dropped, and people rarely serve such lengthy sentences, especially for non-violent crime. There is a chance had he cooperated with the trial, he wouldn't have served a single day in prison.

The US government is very much about punishing people for computer crimes and copyright offences these days. It seems recently these kinds of cases are getting much harsher penalties than the people who commit violent crimes.

Can you point to an example?

David Kernell hacked Sarah Palin's email for example, and did less than one year in minimum security prison. If he had violently assaulted her, I'm willing to bet he would have done more than one year in prison. And that was with him pleading not-guilty. Again, if he had cooperated and plead guilty, he likely would have faced a lesser sentence.

The US government is very much about punishing people for computer crimes and copyright offences these days. It seems recently these kinds of cases are getting much harsher penalties than the people who commit violent crimes.

Other than maybe Manning (the Wikileaks private), what evidence do you have that the government prosecutes computer crimes from vigorously than violent crimes? Prosecutors pushing for the maximum possible sentence is a routine and a bargaining tactic, no matter what kind of crime the defendant is accused of.

One word. Geohot. Settlements be damned, that was bullshit.

Geohot didn't do a single day in jail and didn't pay a penny in fines. Clearly, he was punished worse than someone who committed a violent crime.

Unless you're upset that he shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place. I enjoy hardware hacking as a hobby and I think Sony has made some really stupid business decisions. Geohot was trying to add back in functionality that Sony removed, which I applaud. At the same time, while Geohot didn't directly enable pirates, Sony somewhat had an obligation to try and prevent piracy. Geohot did technically break the law, and Sony pressed charges. But the punishment was fitting of the crime, which was negligible.

The US government is very much about punishing people for computer crimes and copyright offences these days. It seems recently these kinds of cases are getting much harsher penalties than the people who commit violent crimes.

Other than maybe Manning (the Wikileaks private), what evidence do you have that the government prosecutes computer crimes from vigorously than violent crimes? Prosecutors pushing for the maximum possible sentence is a routine and a bargaining tactic, no matter what kind of crime the defendant is accused of.

One word. Geohot. Settlements be damned, that was bullshit.

Geohot didn't do a single day in jail and didn't pay a penny in fines. Clearly, he was punished worse than someone who committed a violent crime.

Unless you're upset that he shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place. I enjoy hardware hacking as a hobby and I think Sony has made some really stupid business decisions. Geohot was trying to add back in functionality that Sony removed, which I applaud. At the same time, while Geohot didn't directly enable pirates, Sony somewhat had an obligation to try and prevent piracy. Geohot did technically break the law, and Sony pressed charges. But the punishment was fitting of the crime, which was negligible.

The charges he was facing guy, the charges he was facing. Aaron may not have gotten any time or legal fees, but we'll never know because he's dead. If Geohot were as depressed as Aaron, he may well have killed himself too in light of the charges against him.

We don't know precisely what went through his head, but the reports I've read said he cited fear of prison as his reason for committing suicide. If that is true, then his motivation was fear, not depression. Saying that is the case in this particular instance is not the same as saying depression doesn't exist for anyone. Your argument is based on statements that were not made.

Here and I understood that depression for many people is a life-long struggle. Growing up, I had friends that struggled with depression. Even as a very young adult I could understand how an event, which may only slightly affect a person not suffering from depression, could have a debilitating effect on those that were.

Now I will confess that I don't know Aaron's history of depression or whether he was currently being treated and/or suffering from it, but I suspect the lack of reference in your post indicates the same for you. At this point I believe it is more plausible that he was suffering than he was not, and from personal experience I can understand how that could significantly alter a person's views and lead them down that path.

Regardless, I can think of few people in the modern age that have committed suicide out of cowardice; that's an unfortunate stigma that people are unwilling to shake. Though I fail to understand how attacking a person that has died of their own volition is any way to approach a solution to a problem except under the dubious belief that you can somehow shame a person out of committing suicide. As in, "this weak coward killed himself; you don't want to viewed as a weak coward, do you?" I just don't see how that reasoning helps anyone, even if it could be a logically defensible argument somehow (which I obviously believe that it cannot.)

I really have a problem calling a suicide a hero. Suicide, especially when the victim kills himself to avoid something embarrassing or legally daunting, is the ultimate in cowardice.

I support the idea of open access and of transparency at all levels, but I don't support chickening out when a trial might have created more of the same. Swartz should have stuck around to continue the fight.

Nobody cares what you do or don't consider. Until you contribute something to benefit your species, you're nothing more than a forum-dwelling maggot feeding on carrion, excreting ignorant statements between mouthfuls.

The US government is very much about punishing people for computer crimes and copyright offences these days. It seems recently these kinds of cases are getting much harsher penalties than the people who commit violent crimes.

Other than maybe Manning (the Wikileaks private), what evidence do you have that the government prosecutes computer crimes from vigorously than violent crimes? Prosecutors pushing for the maximum possible sentence is a routine and a bargaining tactic, no matter what kind of crime the defendant is accused of.

One word. Geohot. Settlements be damned, that was bullshit.

Geohot didn't do a single day in jail and didn't pay a penny in fines. Clearly, he was punished worse than someone who committed a violent crime.

Unless you're upset that he shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place. I enjoy hardware hacking as a hobby and I think Sony has made some really stupid business decisions. Geohot was trying to add back in functionality that Sony removed, which I applaud. At the same time, while Geohot didn't directly enable pirates, Sony somewhat had an obligation to try and prevent piracy. Geohot did technically break the law, and Sony pressed charges. But the punishment was fitting of the crime, which was negligible.

The charges he was facing guy, the charges he was facing. Aaron may not have gotten any time or legal fees, but we'll never know because he's dead. If Geohot were as depressed as Aaron, he may well have killed himself too in light of the charges against him.

The argument still doesn't hold. With any trial for any offense, the prosecution always presses for as many charges as they can, and then often bargains for a plea deal on a lesser charge.

If the argument is that the US government punishes hackers worse than violent offenders, then it fails because the actual punishment for Geohot was extremely light, as was befitting his crime.

You have no clue what you are talking about if you refer to suicide as chickening out. None at all. Were you good friends with Aaron and knew what his state of mind was? Do you know his medical history? Did you sit in on the meetings with his lawyer and the Justice Department and knew what he was facing or being threatened with? Have you ever had the conviction to stand up for something you believe in even if there was a chance you could spend a good portion of the rest of your life in prison for doing so?

Rhetorical questions (red herrings to boot) because even if the answer to all of them was yes, that wouldn't change one bit what people think their answer should be. So why ask them at all?

The US government is very much about punishing people for computer crimes and copyright offences these days. It seems recently these kinds of cases are getting much harsher penalties than the people who commit violent crimes.

Other than maybe Manning (the Wikileaks private), what evidence do you have that the government prosecutes computer crimes from vigorously than violent crimes? Prosecutors pushing for the maximum possible sentence is a routine and a bargaining tactic, no matter what kind of crime the defendant is accused of.

One word. Geohot. Settlements be damned, that was bullshit.

Geohot was never charged in criminal court. He was sued in civil court by Sony.